181
182

A reminder of the level of insanity the Steampunk community faced from SJW's only a short time ago. (archive.is)

NixonForBreadsident が 投稿

全 55 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Vallorn_ 103ポイント104ポイント  (16子コメント)

“Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal distinction, not a community standard, nor should it be.

Wow... So we have someone pretty much advocating for mob justice then. Congratulations to the pillock for making me facepalm hard enough to dent my hand.

[–]SkyriderRJM 29ポイント30ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah, I read that and immediately would stay the fuck away from that convention like the plague.

I do to cons to have fun with friends and take a look at the neat crafts and products. That place is basically saying "you could be accused of sexual assault if someone thinks you looked at them funny and you have no recourse."

[–]bantrain7 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I had a look at their harassment policy and it seems reasonable (stuff like "Don't grope people"), but if that's the attitude they apply it with then I wouldn't come within a hundred meters of the place.

[–]SkyriderRJM 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly. It's probably common sense stuff. The other thing is "rape" is not an issue for conventions. It's an issue for the POLICE. If someone has been accused of committing rape, they should be arrested by the authorities and given due process.

[–]bananaramarang 30ポイント31ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm sick of hearing that institutions like due process or free speech are "Legal Rights". They're moral rights, and they're the most ethical way for institutions with power to exercise that power. The misguided notion that these SJW's have that they can somehow, let alone should, enforce total control of individuals behavior to eliminate a small number of often subjective perceived slights boggles the mind. Nothing will ever be perfect for everyone but they seem driven to create this cultural Marxist utopia where dissenters are banished to Siberia for an off comment, because somehow the constant threat of punishment for offending the wrong people is better than everyone agreeing that most offense is neither intended nor important and growing a thicker skin is not an option.

[–]SynisterBaconLord 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

They aren't even legal rights anyway, because if they were, they couldn't be taken away, which has and will happen again. Like George Carlin said, they're privileges granted to give the illusion of freedom, privileges that can be revoked at any time.

[–]Drop_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

You could also say they're natural or fundamental.

They are essential to a functioning and equitable society, and what are communities other than "tiny" societies.

By eliminating such rights from the community they are only poisoning its ability to maintain itself in the long run.

[–]bantrain7 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't really believe there's such a thing as natural rights, but they're definitely preferable in that pretty much everyone values free speech for themselves at least.

I think the problem springs up where SJW types seem to latch on to this punching up vs. punching down thing, wherin the people they agree with have one set of rights and responsibilities and the people they don't have another.

[–]Jolcas 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, at least you palm is better shaped for a mouse then?

[–]SadCrittersSadCritters used logic. It's super-effective! 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's how Social Justice works. There is no real justice about it. Social Justice Warriors are the Salem Witch Trial accusers all over again.

[–]Niwjere 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

The moment you prefix "justice" with anything, it ceases to be justice.

Justice doesn't care if you're a man or a woman. It doesn't care if you're black or white. It doesn't care if you're straight or gay. Justice is fucking BLIND.

[–]TheSingularThey 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would say that these morons have learned nothing from history, but that is to assume that they know any history at all. I'm sure that if someone suggested proverbial republican baptisms for all their patriarchy sympathizing rape enabling political opponents, they'd be all aboard with that. After all, the [straw-man] "100% proof" [vs. the actual "reasonable doubt"] is an impossible standard, so why not throw standards out the window entirely? Or at least as much out the window as is necessary for us to achieve our desired goal. After all, being reasonable is just... impossibly difficult.

[–]Limon_LimeSeven-37k Get. Eleven more drug deals. 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's always pissed me off. It should be "Innocent until proven guilty" in the public eye as well. What gives you the fucking right to ruining this person's life through public shaming when the court found them innocent? Like that mattress girl. The guy was accused had his college life ruined and he was found innocent.

[–]UnBaTo 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Technically, he was not found innocent. Being found innocent is a very specific term that almost never comes up--it means the judge is more or less staking his reputation on the fact that you did not do what you are accused of.

Rather, if he were brought to a legal court (he was not), he would have been found not guilty, which is similar, but doesn't mean that the accused is actually innocent--they may have just gotten away with it.

But, in this case, a campus tribunal (or whatever), which was tasked with only a preponderance of the evidence standard (much less stringent than a legal case), failed to find the accused guilty. And he is still considered a rapist in the eyes of the public.

[–]Limon_LimeSeven-37k Get. Eleven more drug deals. 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok, but it still be innocent until proven guilty. That's another thing I don't like, Colleges shouldn't investigate stuff like this. The proper authorities should.

[–]mansplain 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

He wasn't brought to court because his accuser wouldn't cooperate with police and their investigation found no reason to charge him.

[–]MALGIL -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am not sure they have legal right to administer justice or prove someone guilty in a sense that "innocent until provent guilty" implies. Though I am not that familiar with US legal system.

[–]its_never_lupus 29ポイント30ポイント  (2子コメント)

Socjus likes witch-hunts and they've been trying to push these dehumanising policies all over the place. One open-source software project hit back with this:

http://nocodeofconduct.com/ncoc

The "No Code of Conduct" code of conduct: it just says treat people like people.

Could be a good way to defend against activists when then try to introduce one of their harassment-encouraging 'harassment' policies next time.

[–]Lucky0Looser 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I liked this part:

Part of not discriminating people, is not discriminating people.

[–]cfl1 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's awesome.

[–]whitman-price-haddad 59ポイント60ポイント  (3子コメント)

As private events, the staff of JME reserves the right to talk to, re-educate, evict, or ban anyone they reasonably see as a problem

re-educate

It chills me to the bone that these people think they have the moral authority and right to "re-educate" people which I see as little more than pc speak for brain washing.

[–]MannoSlimminsPeople who talk in metaphors should shampoo my crotch 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Refuse their re-education. If they evict you, do a credit card charge back

[–]CynicCorvus 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

now now you will feel better once you are part of the collective

[–]NoNSFWsubreddits 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm pretty sure the concentration camps were also a tool to re-educate the Nazi's enemies. Shoutout to StormfrontOrSJW!

[–]videogameboss 33ポイント34ポイント  (5子コメント)

Namely, the incidences of sexual harassment, rape, consent violations, and other non-consensual asshattery are way too high at conventions.

was there a rape at a steam punk convention? i'm just assuming it's an SJW crying wolf.

[–]musashi_mercutioSpaghettis in Japanese 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

i'm just assuming it's an SJW crying dick wolf.

FTFY

[–]ambivilant 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dick Wolf is a legend.

[–]ev1lb1t 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

One need not actually "rape" to be a rapist, shitlord.

this is how they determine whether a male attendee is a rapist.

[–]kestralsintax 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I didn't consent to reading your comment, so your comment just raped me.

Someone should do something about all the rape happening in /r/Kotakuinaction

[–]DeWaffles 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you didn't want it maybe you shouldn't have been reading comments in a dark basement dressed like that.

[–]Orphan81 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

Jesus Christ, reading that it makes me think these Steampunk cons are somehow a haven of rampant rape going on behind every corner. Is it REALLY that bad?

[–]boommicfucker 21ポイント22ポイント  (0子コメント)

It adds to the old timey charm.

[–]Earl_of_sandwiches 26ポイント27ポイント  (5子コメント)

It all makes sense once you accept the fact that women are incapable of telling a lie.

[–]ReverseSolipsist 12ポイント13ポイント  (4子コメント)

You know, your sarcasm is thiiiiis close to being an actual salient point.

It all makes sense once you accept the fact that women are incapable of telling a lie never lie about being victims.

This is just as crazy as what you said, but is actually a thing a large number of SJWs believe and profess without irony. They literally believe that women never lie about being victims, but men do.

[–]Drop_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

According to SJW's men can't be victims, so any time a man claims to be a victim they are lying. It's not that they lie about being a victim, it's that they believe male victimization (aside from male children, but then it's child victimization) is a lie.

[–]ReverseSolipsist 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

No, that's not true. You will almost never hear an SJW type actually say, "men can't be victims." In fact, you will often hear them say, "men can be victims, too." It's just that, with a few exceptions, they don't recognize any forms of male victimhood. This indicates that there is a deeper philosophy at play here.

That deeper philosophy is a belief that women in general are victims while men in general are not, and they have difficulty reconciling the two. If there is a "potential" victim-status as a man can in any way compromise the victim-status of a woman or cause a woman to be seen as a victimizer (except in some cases - cases in which that women isn't appropriately conforming to gender roles as they define them), then his victim-status is denied.

You can't say SJWs don't believe men can be victims when they frequently say (and likely truly believe) the opposite.

[–]Drop_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't believe they think men can be victims.

Perhaps a better way of putting it is they only believe men can be victims if there is some other "Status" to base their victimhood on. Such as sexual orientation or race, for example.

Almost positive no SJW would ever accept a straight, non-transgender, white, male as a "victim."

[–]ReverseSolipsist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then you clearly don't have much experience with genuine interaction with SJWs. If your concept of an SJW is limited to the aspects of their personality you see on twitter or in blogs, or simply in combative in-person interactions, you're going to have an utterly warped concept of what an SJW is and believes.

[–]Limon_LimeSeven-37k Get. Eleven more drug deals. 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why does it seem like any community that is attacked as of late has been by SJWs?

[–]FrinkleMcDoo 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are cultural imperialists. They are not happy unless communities conform to their worldviews, and their worldviews demand tight control and shielding from anything even remotely uncomfortable.

[–]inkjetlabel 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

You keep using that word, etc...

noun noun: libertine; plural noun: libertines

1.
a person, especially a man, who behaves without moral principles or a sense of responsibility, especially in sexual matters.
synonyms: philanderer, playboy, rake, roué, Don Juan, Lothario, Casanova, Romeo; More

[–]SSCat 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

I read that and I gotta say to the author...

Fuck you and your high horse.

[–]THE_Zap_Rowsdower 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't even know what to say about this, really. It took me about 5 paragraphs to finally come to terms with at least one fact that comes across in this article:

The author is a bully. They know they are, and they don't care.

I don't know who raised this person but if they were my child I would be fucking ashamed. I'm sure most of this ramble is my HS nerd scars talking, but GOD DAMN. Nobody ever taught the author not to use their own advantages to take things from others, like they are owed. They even admit it:

Consent culture requires us all to get rid of some of the bad and bullying behaviors we’ve learned to use to get our way and accept that we cannot control other people and sometimes they are not going to do what we want

Did they even read this as they were writing it and think for a second "damn I kinda sound like I'm an asshole.."

Lesson #1 I got from my parents growing up: You can't always get what you want (cue The Rolling Stones).

If you don't get what you want, look at what happened and see what you can do differently next time. Don't get mad at other people for not automatically going along with you on everything.

Not "judge the people around you by what you can take from them." Don't take from other people in general. They worked (hopefully) for what they have, you work for what you have.

But no. Not "The Editor".

People who can coerce, cajole, and intimidate others into action are often rewarded, especially in professional settings. I’m not innocent of this either. I can be very intimidating and have often used my command of rhetoric and strength of charisma to steamroll people for the sake of expedience and ease.

"I can do this thing that other people, assholes as they may be, do all the time, so I'm just gonna go right along with it. Look at all the great stuff that happens to me when I force people to do what I want!"

The term that comes to mind right this second is "emotional rapist". I don't believe this person has ever done anything illegal, but maybe immoral? Unethical? Just to get something they want, by using advantages they have over others? Absolutely.

So I wanted to try to find out who this person was a little more, just to get an idea of what kind of life they could possibly lead and feel like this kind of behavior was OK.

Look for author tagline -> "The Editor" -> ... OK click -> List of other posts, about what you'd expect -> click "The Editor" again, URL looks like an About page.

I’m a maker. I’m a mother. I’m an unrepentant slut. I’m a sex positive activist. I like making, loving, parenting, fucking, thinking, teaching and writing.

https://c3.staticflickr.com/3/2812/9477234930_88614d3573.jpg

It all makes sense now.

have often used my command of rhetoric and strength of charisma to steamroll people

Charisma = tits. Got it. See what I mean when I say "emotional rapist"?

"I can make people (men) do what I want by using what the lord gave me, so why shouldn't I."

[–]madhousechild 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can be very intimidating and have often used my command of rhetoric and strength of charisma to steamroll people for the sake of expedience and ease.

Once again this desire to police others comes from their need to assuage their own sense of guilt and shame.

[–]CynicCorvus 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

So another place where people have retreated because honestly other people suck, is visited by outsiders who like some of what there so dictate that everyone must change to suit them more instead of adjusting to a different culture..... mmmm sounds like a bit of imperialism and cultural appropriation to me.

  • disclaimer yes i know its about con style ' dont sexually harass people' rules, however it does have a bit of hand waving away the idea that people might NOT be guilty of what they are accused of

[–]cakesphere 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

pfft. Cyberpunk is where it's at

That said, I fucking hate how hard conventions in general hopped on the SJW train to crazytown. Why even hold a convention if everyone is going to be walking on eggshells?

Also that throwing out of innocent until proven guilty. Glad to see that the steampunk community is for lynching -_-

[–]adamantjourney 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Go check out the most up to date version here.

Page not found, lol. The organizers themselves don't support it.

[–]MM985 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think I've ever seen someone use the phrase 're-educate' in a mannee that wasn't sarcastic. First for everything I suppose.

Somehow I always find myself thinking that the more far-gone members of the SJ clique really are aware of how full of shit they are. They'll put on a good face for the cameras and tell very carefully crafted stories.

But with how GG has grown bigger than itself, once people look under the hood they realize how bullshit the narrative is.

They just have to be willing to look.

[–]madhousechild 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Namely, the incidences of sexual harassment, rape, consent violations, and other non-consensual asshattery are way too high at conventions.

Wut. I somehow think, at least I fervently hope, that if there were even one or maybe two actual rapes of conventioneers by conventioneers, that I would have heard about it, esp if it involved Steampunks, whom the media would have a field day shining their 'look at these nerds' spotlight on.

[–]throwawayspai 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sounds good on a superficial level until you realize it's just a bunch of buzzwords that describe nothing in detail. They could be talking about anything.

[–]mnemosyne-0000#BotYourShield 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Archive links for this discussion:

I am Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. I remember so you don't have to.

[–]IMAROBOTLOL -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Can someone TL;DR this?

Cons attract all sorts of creepy idiots who don't respect personal space or social norms, as much of a minority as they may be. Just because SJWs decry harassment at the drop of a tophat with gears on it, it does not mean it doesn't exist, or that organizers do not have any obligation to become stricter.

I skimmed over it, but what's supposed to stand out as distinctly SJW, asides from a couple buzzwords here?

[–]HolyThirteenRule34K get! 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe you know more about cons than I do, but is there a rampant groping/creep-shotting problem that you are aware of?

In most cases a woman making an accusation against a man for groping her or something would likely result in security going with their biases and booting the guy. Without this policy, at least security would have the option to not do so, depending on whether or not they found the accused more believable than the accuser, camera footage, etc.

I'd like to see how security would handle this policy if it were two men accusing each other of groping, presumably they would have to boot both of them, or go with whoever made the accusation first. Doesn't that seem like a stupid policy from that perspective?

Of course, that's not likely to happen. And maybe all of these professional victims have jaded us, but this policy just reeks of them. Always Listen and Believe. Questioning the victim for ANY reason is victim-blaming, even if that reason is a complete lack of evidence to support their accusations.

Edit: Oh, this is creepy wording too: "the staff of JME reserves the right to talk to, re-educate, evict, or ban anyone"

[–]NixonForBreadsident[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If someone, be it an ex girlfriend or a SJW who knows you and doesn't like you personally, can make up a claim and it will be believed and see you kicked out.

Unless you have overwhelming evidence to prove otherwise, you will be kicked out. There's a likelihood that even if you do it won't be enough.

If you challenge the ruling, you get kicked out for life from all future events.

If you don't apologize, even though you didn't do it, there's a chance you'll get kicked out from all future events.

That you prefaced your post with "creepy idiots" and complained about personal space and social norms is exactly the issue. It's fallacies like this in which they throw out a bunch of statements about how they are against "harassment" and these new rules will be against "harassment" and then apply them to things completely unrelated things or rules that cause big issues compared to previous rules against harassment that are the issue.

It's no different than "think of the children" and is a rule, just like Title IX crap at Universities, that by default automatically assumes the accuser (as a woman, since this is what these rules were created in relation to) cannot possibly be lying when given the power to kick people out of a convention without any evidence whatsoever.